This has to be the single, dumbest PC to console
comparison I've ever seen

That video is nothing but a PC fanboy reassurance video and the comments under it are just sad. PC elitists aren't even gamers. They're just hardware obsessed neckbeards.

The other day I summarised "Most PC gamers in a nutshell".

Most PC gamers in a nutshell

*Spend $1500-2000 on a Gaming PC**Buys Dual-monitors and fancy Razer keyboard & mouse**Buys tonnes of games for cheap and never play them**Plays mostly MMOs and MOBAs that can run off a $500 laptop**Brags about graphics and calls people peasants*

I like how your view of PC gamers are just stupid people who drop thousands of dollars for not other reason than because they like spending money. Oh, and a $500 laptop can barely run Dota 2 on low settings because they're using crappy integrated cards. A GeForce GT 750 can just barely reach 30+ fps for Dota 2, and that's the kind of card you see in $750 Laptops. Running an MMO on max settings would likely require even more. Guess you have no idea what you're talking about.

ExempliGratia posted...

Are really people comparing to console games against MODDED pc games? Wow just wow.

How about comparing console games to the original pc version? Still silly but that's better than comparing it to a heavily modded game.

ExempliGratia posted...

Lmao.We are talking about comparing a game modded by someone that isn't the developer to look better vs a console game. Sorry that's just ridiculous.

So what exactly is your point? That consoles are capable of putting out equivalent ports because they're holding this generation back due to their crappy hardware? I agree. The point of the video is that Consoles, graphics-wise, are terrible last-gen products and they demonstrated that with a 5-year old graphics card which still managed to outperform them when he underclocked it to the lowest it could go.

You're a bit thick if you think you need a higher than GT 750 to run MMOs on max settings. Maybe some of the newer Korean grindfest MMOs that are made to just look pretty (kinda like how Crysis was made to just look pretty, but really was a very shallow game)

My 650Ti runs any game i've played on it at max settings, even MMOs with good framerates. Sure at times doing raids on Tera I might drop down to 20 FPS, but that's mostly due to the game not handling multi-threading very well and only using 1 core of the 4 that I have on my CPU. Which raises another point. Online games like Dota 2 or MMOs are very CPU intensive, but not as much GPU intensive. the reason why you likely get bad frames on Dota 2 is because your CPU is junk, and not because it needs a high-end GPU.

So really, you're encountering severe bottlenecks in your hardware. Which BTW, is a thing that consoles a SPECIFICALLY engineered to NOT have a problem with.

Is this when the Elitests tell us you can build a PC that will run the uber-modded Skyrim for $275?

Those are my favorites,---I will try and see it from your point of view, but I doubt we'll be able to fit both our heads up there.

#43ShippFFXIPosted 7/15/2014 9:24:58 AM

Ellesarien posted...

Is this when the Elitests tell us you can build a PC that will run the uber-modded Skyrim for $275?

Those are my favorites,

It wasn't until some console fanboy stated that console versions look better than pc versions that people started talking about how pc gaming is better in terms of graphics.

The statement was purely asinine and factually incorrect. Honestly, I don't know a pc gamer who doesn't play on consoles as well. Consoles are good for exclusives and for people who don't want to make a gaming rig. Which is totally ok. Just don't pretend that skyrim looks better on a console, even prior to mods on the PC.

#44MRL3G3NDPosted 7/15/2014 9:31:58 AM

I have a wait and see...everyone should know they develop for the lowest common denominator...which means.

5 years ago, PC's were getting last gen console ports...only a hand full of PC games ACTUALLY USED the power they had. The only benefits PC's had over consoles was a better framerate and resolution...

Just like now...you can have top of the line PC hardware NOW...you'll still be running a console port at 1440p/120fps

It doesn't make sense anymore to develop a OMG game, and then spend more money on developing a watered down console version.....

http://youtu.be/bMNpmTPbMjI---Watch_Dogs-Dog Day (X1)http://youtu.be/q08oNNp74uQ

#45ShippFFXIPosted 7/15/2014 9:45:03 AM

MRL3G3ND posted...

I have a wait and see...everyone should know they develop for the lowest common denominator...which means.

5 years ago, PC's were getting last gen console ports...only a hand full of PC games ACTUALLY USED the power they had. The only benefits PC's had over consoles was a better framerate and resolution...

Just like now...you can have top of the line PC hardware NOW...you'll still be running a console port at 1440p/120fps

It doesn't make sense anymore to develop a OMG game, and then spend more money on developing a watered down console version.....

http://youtu.be/bMNpmTPbMjI

There are games that push modern GPUs, but like you said, it's kinda rare. The upside to that is twofold. For people interested in a more customizable experience with mods, they could build a PC with older hardware that is similar in price to a current console and get about the same performance on the PC, possibly a bit better. Or they can get a console if they're unable to get both and want a console for exclusives, thus still being able to play the game, just not at optimum performance.

The difference with PC gaming is that you can pretty much future-proof it for about 5 years. New games in five years well still be playable on (at minimum) medium settings more often than not. At that point you can upgrade your GPU or other hardware as desired. I mean, I've got a gtx 460 from like 2010 and was still able to run FFXIV at 60fps in most areas, with dips to 40 at the lowest on the highest settings. Only thing bottlenecking my current rig is CPU and 32bit windows.

#46kingofjamaicaPosted 7/15/2014 9:50:54 AM

triple s posted...

The particles really stand out but I don't see anything in that game that looks better than Saints Row 3 on PC.

Literally everything in Infamous Second Son looks better than the PC version of Saints Row 3, except maybe the anisotropic filtering. I don't remember the settings on SR3, but I think it allowed 16xAF.---At some point, you're going to have to talk to a tree and do what it says. - Arbor Day Rule, Grand List of RPG Cliches.

#47SoulTrapperPosted 7/15/2014 12:44:13 PM

Crystyn_7B posted...

SoulTrapper posted...

Crystyn_7B posted...

SoulTrapper posted...

The problem is that the current consoles aren't cheap.They cost around what you would pay for a PC with similar specs, give or take $100.

The problem is that consoles are supposed to last you around 7 years, but with hardware that was top of the line 5 years ago.

So they're already behind, when they used to be pretty close to the top of the line GPU when released.

https://i.imgur.com/BJQb4bS.png

Of course, no one expects consoles to launch with a Titan, but a slightly better GPU would have helped both consoles out quite a bit.

That only bothers PC players though.

Unfortunately, it does.

It should bother everyone, since everyone would be having better games/graphics if this was different.

How so? They get what they pay for a device that plays games at the level of around a 400$ PC optimized especially for their configuration with a streamlined OS and exclusives.

The issue is that that " $400 optimized PC" used to be near top of the line hardware.

Right now, it's mid-range at best.

https://i.imgur.com/BJQb4bS.png

Previous generations, you always got more than what you paid for. The hardware in the consoles was always much better than the same price PC.This generation, it's not.

People should care, because getting better games is better. If consoles have better hardware, everyone gets better games.It's quite a simple explanation.

#48SoulTrapperPosted 7/15/2014 12:46:46 PM

gamefaqwatcher posted...

SoulTrapper posted...

Kazuya_80 posted...

Madmax1985 posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diVUAbEBTwg Huh... Skyrim came out 2 years ago.... and looks better than those interactive movies.

skyrim doenst look better than infamous 3.

Modded Crysis, a 7 year old game, still has the best graphics around.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v5KbZgQ0gY

Those lighting effects are bad (Hard to look at). I much preferred the skyrim example in this topic. That video was nice.

I didn't spend much time looking for a good video, just picked one of the first results from Google.It was mainly to point out that a 7 year old game looks better than what we currently have on consoles (even though those games are far from ugly).

#49scoobydoobydontPosted 7/15/2014 12:48:09 PM

kingofjamaica posted...

triple s posted...

The particles really stand out but I don't see anything in that game that looks better than Saints Row 3 on PC.

Literally everything in Infamous Second Son looks better than the PC version of Saints Row 3, except maybe the anisotropic filtering. I don't remember the settings on SR3, but I think it allowed 16xAF.

SS looks good, but you are out of your mind.---"Why do you expect me to be rational? I'm a troll..." -Izraeilhttp://i.imgur.com/8LUhEFG.jpg

#50SragentThomPosted 7/15/2014 12:52:04 PM

Um, guys. Console specs are always a few years old before it gets released in the market. It's always been the case.---https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Df8Ny6zHVcMc Nuggco: Heart attack within